Stem Cell Research: for it or against it?

I am all for it. I cannot see why Bush wants to limit it. To me thats crazy.

I would rather kill some cells and save people from their suffering than the other way around.

A cell is not a person yet, it is not even a fetus. Who cares about some cells, lets save real people.

To me, this shouldn't even be an issue. It's not NEARLY the same as the pro-choice/pro-life debate.

 

That Reeve special the other night got me thinking.

 

Agreed.

This is a ridiculous debate. A fetus may well have "personhood" but a few totipotent cells do not.

When I take a shower every morning I wash off dead skin cells containing a complete record of my DNA. Is showering immoral, too?

For the record, this issue seems to cut across political party lines. A number of "techno-capitalist" Republicans support stem cell research, while many Democrats oppose it.

I think we should keep in mind that even if we don't do this research, some other nation or group will, and it will be they who reap the practical benefit and profit, not us.

 

Hopefully the benefits won't come in the form of a capsule, given it takes the FDA 12 years to approve something everyone else is already using.

 

For it 100%!!

 

I don't see why we shouldn't have it.

 

"Hopefully the benefits won't come in the form of a capsule, given it takes the FDA 12 years to approve something everyone else is already using."

I think FDA approval will be the least of our worries. Even if we went full steam ahead on stem cell research, it would take many decades before the practical results would reach the doctor's office/hospital/pharmacy stage.

So it's kind of silly for Christopher Reeve to act like he'd be out of that wheelchair in a week if only George W. would reconsider.

I support stem cell research, but it will probably be our grandchildren (or their grandchildren) who will see any benefit from it.

 

I am very much for this research. I truly hope that this doesn't get banned along with reproductive cloning.... I support the banning of reproductive cloning, but it's terrible to think that stem cell research might be banned at the same time, when it's an entirely different thing. It's terrible to think that it might be, since it will benefit so many people someday.

 

If they could get the research going all out now, then maybe in 5 or 10 years Chris Reeve would benifit. Its not out of the realm of possibility.

Besides he having alot of money, I am sure he would be one of the first ones to have it done on him.

 

Emphatically for it.

 

Completely for stem cell research.

 

For it.

 

No one against it, huh? Thats a first. I'm for it, by the way. Way to the future!

 

For it

Christopher Reeves, Michael J Fox and Muhammad Ali are just a few of the celebreties that are in favour of it. I mean every time i look at those guys i feel sad, especialy when you remember them in their prime

(i only talk about these celebs, becuase i dont personally know anyone who it would benefit, i know there are millions of normal people that it would help as well)

========
Comic Book Guy

 

I think an important distinction needs to be made here between embryonic and adult stem cell research. I assume most people who have posted here are in favor of ESCR when they say they support stem cell research in general, because this is what generates the most debate in the media. This, insofar as it goes, is not a ridiculous debate but one of real consequence. I am emphatically against embryonic stem cell research, but very much for adult stem cell research.

The reasons why I am against ESCR are not, contrary to what some would think, because I am heartless and unsympathetic toward those suffering from disease, but because I believe it is inherently wrong to create life for the purpose of destroying it. In order to get embryonic stem cells, you have to create an embryo, let it get to a certain stage of development, and then kill it. This is wrong. Besides being wrong in itself, it also leads to the weakening of any conviction that might exist that cloning people for organs, or human cloning in general, is morally questionable (a position that many, even if in favor of ESCR, take - they too are wary of full scale human cloning). Slippery slope arguments, while often disdained, are not invalid on their face. Finally, to clarify, President Bush's directive said that no federal funding would be given for embryonic stem cell research. This is not placing a moratorium on all research, merely saying that the federal government will not finance a line of research that toes the ethical line.

That being said, here's the underreported GOOD NEWS regarding ADULT stem cell research:

• On July 19, 2001, the Harvard University Gazette reported that mice with Type 1 diabetes (an autoimmune disorder) were completely cured of their disease using adult stem cells. This was accomplished by destroying the cells responsible for the diabetes, at which point, the animals' own adult stem cells regenerated the missing cells with healthy tissue. Dr. Denise Faustman told the Gazette, that if the therapy works out in humans "we should be able to replace damaged organs and tissues by using adult stem cells, thus eliminating, at least temporarily, the need to harvest and transplant stem cells from embryos and fetuses."



• On June 15, 2001, the Globe and Mail (Canada) reported a wonderful story that could provide great hope to people with spinal injuries. Israeli doctors injected paraplegic Melissa Holley, age 18, who became disabled when her spinal cord was severed in an auto accident. After researchers injected her with her own white blood cells, she regained the ability to move her toes and control her bladder.



• In December 2001, Tissue Engineering, a peer-reviewed journal, reported that researchers believe they will be able to use stem cells found in fat to rebuild bone. The researchers are about to enter extensive animal studies. If these pan out, people with osteoporosis and other degenerative bone conditions could benefit significantly.



• As originally reported late last year in the medical journal Blood, Dr. Catherine M. Verfaillie and other researchers at the Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota, have discovered a way to coax an adult cell found in the bone marrow to exhibit many of the attributes that supposedly make embryonic stem cells irreplaceable to the development future "miracle" medical therapies. While there is still much research to be done, "multi-potent adult progenitor cells" (MAPCs) appear to be versatile, that is, capable of transforming into different types of tissues. (In a culture dish, the cells can be coaxed into becoming muscle, cartilage, bone, liver, or different types of neurons in the brain.) They are also malleable, meaning they can do so relatively easily. They also exhibit the "immortality" valued in embryonic cells, that is to say, they seem capable of being transformed into cell lines that can be maintained indefinitely. At the same time, these adult cells do not appear to present the acute danger associated with embryonic stem cells: the ten

 

I completely agree with you, irishjedi. There seems to be a lot of ignorance towards adult stem cell research, whereas embryonic research has become a frenzied debate. Not only is embryonic stem cell treatment possibly dangerous, it is also quite likely to be less effective than adult stem cell treatment. Don't get me wrong, though, I'm all in favor of stem cell research. But, like irishjedi, I have basic moral complaints against the idea of creating embryonic cells just to destroy them. However, this has nothing to do with the life/choice debate, and should not be viewed as so. I caught the news about adult fat cells being used to rebuild bone, and I was amazed at that. It's unfortunate that the media seems to be ignoring breakthroughs like that overall, though.

 

I remember an article a couple of weeks ago.... on MSNBC.com or CNN.com, now I can't remember.... I'm going to try to find it again, but it was about how adult stem cells were not going to be as effective.

Article: MSNBC

Edit: Linked article.

 

I can't believe that adult stem cells would work better than embryonic stem cells. Not that I know anything about science, I just know that embryonic stem cells can turn into ANYTHING.

I also think that pro-lifers lost a lot more support for their cause once stem cell research came to the forefront of national attention.

 

The idea that adult stem cells are cheap, more efficient, and yield greater promise then embryonic stem cells is flat out wrong. To say so is deceptive. I'm for embryonic stem cell research. I was not a human being when I was a week-old embryo.

Not only is embryonic stem cell treatment possibly dangerous, it is also quite likely to be less effective than adult stem cell treatment.

As far as I know, that's simply a lie. PPOR.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm all in favor of stem cell research.

Except that with the greatest promise?

But, like irishjedi, I have basic moral complaints against the idea of creating embryonic cells just to destroy them.

Please. Does anyone honestly think in 50 years this'll be thought of any differently then moral arguements over test tube babies decades ago? Same tired Christian-derived "natural law" esque rhetoric. No longer relevent in a moden age.

However, this has nothing to do with the life/choice debate, and should not be viewed as so.

Sure it does. Uses the same arguements really. Except these aren't fetuses and growing children of stupid stupid women, these are barely gestating embryoes being used to cure life-threatening disease.

I caught the news about adult fat cells being used to rebuild bone, and I was amazed at that.

PPOR.

It's unfortunate that the media seems to be ignoring breakthroughs like that overall, though.

All I've heard from the scientific community is that adult stem cells are unlikely to yield anything close to what embryonic stem cells can. Any have any quotes?

 

Stem cells aren't embryo's. I guess the best way to decide when a bunch of cells becomes a human being is to say it isn't even alive until it can think.

 

Indeed. It's soooo hypocritical of Christian-derived hypermoralistic camp to whine about it. Chimps have the mental competency of 3-year-olds, but we use them for lots of medical experiments. Where's the bleeding hearts' outcry there? But mention the word "embryo" and they begin screaming.

 

Let's keep the shots at Christianity out, shall we?

 

With all due respect KnightWriter, I am a Christian, but the anti-research factions are primarily stemming from supposedly Christain interpretations of morality. I ask whether those same interpretations apply to apes. All I wonder.

 

Thanks, Terr Mys. I think you bring up a good point - in addition to raising moral issues, ESCR is also possibly dangerous, inasmuch as those stem cells have been associated with uncontrollable growth into tumors or cancers.

Thanks for posting the link, Rebecca. I read the article and, while I admit I am not a scientist, I saw a few logically apparent problems with the article's conclusions. First, the article says that the Stanford researcher injected an adult blood-making stem cell from bone marrow into a mouse with no bone marrow, and that the stem cells had caused the blood-making stem cells of the host mouse to be fully regenerated, but no other types of cells had been spontaneously regenerated. Ergo, she concluded, that proved that embryonic stem cells are better. However, I did not see anything to indicate that she had actually performed research with embryonic stem cells as a control or comparison study, to show for instance that embryonic cells would have spontaneously changed to develop into multiple kinds of cells from one given cell. Neither did her research findings as presented negate the study I mentioned above, in which the Minnesota researcher found that adult stem cells were malleable and could be coaxed into becoming other types of cells in culture, after which change they showed signs of being able to be maintained in cell lines indefinitely.

And it's not just how effective ASCR might be, it's also how effective it has already shown evidence of being. As the Harvard article reported, Type I diabetes was completely cured in the study's mice using adult stem cells. This is very exciting news for anyone who, like many people I know, deal with the constant, day-to-day reality of regulating their blood sugar levels. And while of course the study needs to be repeated and tested in different animals, I know of no corresponding research which has produced identical or equivalent results using ESCR. This type of research really should be pursued - but does not require embryonic stem cells to do so.

 

That's fine, LDB, but just say it respectfully .